Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35853882›Full record

ReviewSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2022

The efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rasmus Lorentzen, Tuan D Nguyen, Alexander McGirr, Fredrik Hieronymus, Søren D Østergaard

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Non-inferiority of Accelerated vs. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Rasmus LorentzenDepartment of Affective Disorders, Aarhus University Hospital - Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9593-3687
Tuan D NguyenDepartment of Affective Disorders, Aarhus University Hospital - Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark.
Alexander McGirrHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8425-3958
Fredrik HieronymusDepartment of Affective Disorders, Aarhus University Hospital - Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0930-6068
Søren D ØstergaardDepartment of Affective Disorders, Aarhus University Hospital - Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark. soeoes@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8032-6208
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several trials have shown preliminary evidence for the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as a treatment for negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Here, we synthesize this literature in a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials of TMS in patients with schizophrenia. Specifically, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched for sham-controlled, randomized trials of TMS among patients with schizophrenia. The effect of TMS vs. sham on negative symptoms in each study was quantified by the standardized mean difference (SMD, Cohen's d) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) and pooled across studies using an inverse variance random effects model. We identified 57 studies with a total of 2633 participants that were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed statistically significant superiority of TMS (SMD = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.26; 0.56, p-value < 0.001), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 5. Furthermore, stratified analyses suggested that TMS targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and using a stimulation frequency >1 Hz was most efficacious. There was, however, substantial heterogeneity and high risk of bias among the included studies. In conclusion, TMS appears to be an efficacious treatment option for patients with schizophrenia suffering from negative symptoms, but the optimal TMS parameters are yet to be established.

Identifiers

PMID35853882
PMCPMC9261093
OpenAlexW4226102228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.